Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Recent examples of continuing resolutions in US budget process
Executive Summary
Congress has relied on continuing resolutions (CRs) as a routine stopgap in the federal budget process, with long-term patterns showing frequent use and substantial cumulative days of temporary funding; recent legislative examples cited in the analyses include H.R.9494 (a failed 2025 measure) and H.R.5371 (a 2026 continuing appropriations vehicle that provided funding through November 21, 2025) [1] [2]. The available materials document both the scale — hundreds of CRs over decades — and the operational consequences for agencies, while also revealing partisan messaging around “clean” CRs and industry-backed appeals to avoid disruptions [3] [4] [5].
1. How often Congress resorts to patchwork funding — the scale and pattern that jumps out
The historical record in these analyses shows that CRs are a systemic feature of the appropriations calendar: 207 CRs enacted between FY1977 and FY2025, and at least one CR enacted in all but three of the past 47 fiscal years, with an average of roughly five CRs per fiscal year from FY1998 to FY2025 [3] [6]. Those figures underline a recurring pattern in which Congress repeatedly delays final appropriations and turns instead to temporary measures. The data also quantify the practical effect: an average of 118 days of temporary funding provided per year while appropriations conclude, which signals sustained periods of budgetary limbo for federal programs and contractors [3]. This long-term perspective reframes CRs not as rare emergency fixes but as a frequent procedural outcome of the annual appropriations cycle.
2. Recent legislative examples and outcomes — two CRs that illustrate different fates
The summaries identify H.R.9494, the Continuing Appropriations and Other Matters Act, 2025, which failed in the House after a September 2024 vote of 202–220, as a recent unsuccessful CR effort [1]. By contrast, H.R.5371, described as the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2026, functioned as an enacted CR providing FY2026 funding through November 21, 2025 [2]. These adjacent examples reveal the transactional nature of CRs: some proposals fail amid partisan divides while others become the vehicle that temporarily sustains government operations. The juxtaposition demonstrates how legislative strategy, timing, and coalition-building can determine whether a CR becomes law or precipitates further negotiation.
3. Operational fallout — what the government experiences under stopgap funding
Analyses underscore tangible management and operational impacts when agencies operate under CRs: limited flexibility, administrative inefficiencies, and constrained ability to start new programs or obligate funds beyond prior-year levels [4]. The GAO-style assessment reflected in the materials frames CRs as more than procedural inconveniences; they inflict planning uncertainty across programmatic, contracting, and grant-making activities. When CRs are protracted or passed in rapid succession — as the average of multiple CRs per year indicates — federal managers face repeated cycles of adaptation that can slow service delivery and complicate multi-year investments, raising costs and operational risk even absent a shutdown.
4. Political framing and stakeholder pressures — why “clean” CRs become a rallying cry
The commentaries show partisan and stakeholder dynamics shaping CR debates. One analysis documents a push for a “clean CR” supported by over 300 organizations to reopen government and avoid disruption, a lobbying strategy that frames CR passage as urgent for businesses and beneficiaries [5]. Conversely, legislative defeats like H.R.9494’s House vote illustrate how partisan bargaining, policy riders, and intra-party divisions can block even temporary funding measures [1]. These patterns indicate that CR debates are not purely technical budget choices but political events where interest groups and party tactics drive outcomes, and the label “clean” often signals an effort to remove controversial policy conditions from funding bills.
5. Reconciling figures and the big picture — what the different metrics tell us together
The various counts and anecdotes in the analyses converge on a clear conclusion: CRs are frequent and consequential. The 207-CR total and the multi-decade frequency highlight chronic reliance, while the more recent tallies and case studies (one failed CR in 2025 and an enacted FY2026 continuing appropriations measure through November 21, 2025) provide concrete windows into how that reliance plays out in real time [3] [1] [2]. Taken together, the materials show both the statistical regularity of CRs and the political variability of any given CR’s fate, with operational harm and stakeholder lobbying consistently shaping the debate [4] [5].